I would like to hear the opinions of some of our PnP DM's on a dispute I had in a game.

As I've mentioned in other threads, <font color="red">Cerek</font> was a 1st Edition barbarian. He never liked mages and he eventually recieved Magic Resistance from a non-standard artifact.

The specifics of his Magic Resistance were:
<font color="plum">99% Magic Resistance - UNaffected by caster's level.
Total immunity to ANY spell under 7th level.</font>

Then, 2nd Edition came out with a new spell call <font color="white">Lower Magic Resistance</font>, which was 6th Level and had NO SAVE. It automatically lowered MR by a percentage amount.

In a different game, the same DM that gave me the MR tried to hit <font color="red">Cerek</font> with this spell.

I said it wouldn't work because I had MR granted by an artifact and this was just an ordinary spell. He said that, since the spell was specifically designed to lower MR, it didn't matter HOW I got it.(In our group, Artifact and Relic powers would work, even under the effects of an <font color="white">Anti-Magic Shell</font>).

I then pointed out that I was immune to ANY spell lower than 7th level, so it would still fizzle, but he disagreed.

So...I want your honost opinion as a DM...who was right?

[ 03-29-2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]

Lower magic resistance should lower any normal magic resistance, but since your magic resistance came from an artifact, and even a dead magic zone can't prevent an artifact from working, it would be very possible that your character's magic resistance can't be lowered.

But your Dm has the final say in his sessions, so if for some reason he think it would unbalance the game (I don't know, maybe you decided to storm the Most powerfull mage academy of your realm ;) ) then he has the right to say it can be lowered.

Even if the LMR spell would affect the resistance granted by the artifact, Cerek with artifact is not a valid target for the spell, so to speak. If you've agreed that it grants complete immunity to all spells of lvl 6 and lower, then that's what it does. If either the description of the spell or the item would state that LMR is an exception and does indeed work, it will work and lower the resistance. If it is not explicitly stated anywhere, (assuming you wrote it's effects down when you first identified the item) then LMR simply does not work.

technically, you cannot be affected by the spell, and I'm not sure about your group, but I thought it was generally accepted that you DON'T ARGUE WITH THE DM. I've been hit with "natural" lightning for less than that.

The Dungeon Master is always correct.
The Dungeon Master must be obeyed even if his sayings contradict with earlier sayings.
This is MY rule when I DM and I think that most other DMs agree strongly! :D
Sorry my barbaric friend but I side with your DM...

I don't mind my player voicing their opinion, and if I feel they are right, I will act accordingly, but as long as it does not take time away from the gaming session. Such matters can always be discussed between two sessions.

As for being shot down by natural lightning for an angering the DM, I hope this was a joke. I would never play with such an unfair DM.

<font color="cyan">That is horse ****.

Cerek, I side with you. Don't argue with the DM is a fair rule, unless he is being totally stupid. Then you can argue.

If a DM is changing things to suit himself then that is unfair....Cerek can't be effected by the spell, but the DM is abusing his power as a DM and changing the rules.</font>

Well if it was the same edition then Cerek would be right.But Lavindathar before you start saying horse***** DO see that we are talking about 2 distinct game systems!!!!!!
It was like trying to play 2nd edition dnd with 3rd edition AC!!!!!!!
The DM has the final say in these situations and if he said that the spell can breach MR in that Game session it CAN

The Dm has the right to do anything he want in his campain. If you don't agree with him, then stop playing with him, otherwise he has the right to do as he want.

BUT, a DM who want to keep his player for more than a session should listen to his player's opinion.

[ 03-29-2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

<font color="cyan">And I didnt say Horse *****. I said Horse ****. Difference.

And why does everyone take offence whenever I swear? You all need to become British.

And whatever. IMPO Cerek is right.</font>

I have to agree with "The DM is always right." It's his (or her) game, you're in his world, his word is final. Any decent DM wouldn't abuse this power. But if he felt that your nigh-magic immune barbarian was throwing game balance off, he's entitled to attempt to even the score. There are better ways than just saying "I'm the DM, so this spell works"... I believe 'Pierce Shield' is an 8th level spell that lowers %MR - that should work. If there are still problems with "It's the artifact's MR, not mine!" then target the artifact itself (and then come up with an explanation on how the enemy wiz knew to do that). Besides - lowering your MR by %20 - %30 for a few rounds isn't the end of the world, is it? Barbarians have fast movement for the occasional strategic retreat if things get bad [img]tongue.gif[/img]

As a 15 year DM, I can honestly say that a DM is not always right. And a player has the right to argue, as a DM has the right to respond. Artifacts are very powerful items, and I rarely use them, and if I do, I live with the choice. If I were Cerek's DM, LMR would not have worked, as the (non-standard) artifact is the stronger. That being said, the bottom-line is the DM, and its up to him/her as whether or not LMR is successful.

[ 03-29-2002, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Vohl ]

Magic resistance does not interfere with helpfull spell. The only place it does that is in The Black Island game, and they are doing it for balance reason. In Pen and Paper it is not like that.

I edited last post, (concerning magic resistance vs beneficial magic) as that strays from the main topic. Its something I added (as a DM) about 6-7 years ago.

Thanks to everyone that has replied. I sincerely appreciate all the input. I'll respond myself to as many of the Replies as I can.

First, a little more background on the origin of the massive Magic Resistance. It was designed by a DM friend of mine for his monsters to challenge a 30th level party and was NEVER intended to actually be put into play. However, if a DM can think it up, sooner or later, a player will figure out a way to get it. I had faced these Magic Resistant monsters myself and knew just how tough they were.

In the dungeon where I received the Magic Resistance, we had completed the dungeon and - as our reward - the DM granted each character 1 Wish. Another DM in our group had created an artifact that would allow a PC to face different creatures (or characters) in single combat. If the character defeated the creature, he would gain any ONE skill or ability of that creature as his own. However, if the character lost, he became trapped in the artifact and was removed from the gameworld.
Normally, you can't choose your opponent, but since I had a Wish going for me, I got to pick my foe...so I chose the Super Resistant monster created by my friend....and just BARELY beat him.

<font color="lime">Legolas</font> - Your point is EXACTLY the same one I was trying to make. I didn't care WHAT the spell was, the Magic Resistance SPECIFICALLY stated that I was immune to anything below 7th level...so this 6th level spell should've had ZERO chance of affecting me.

<font color="cyan">Stile</font> & <font color="silver">Helspanth</font> - I agree that the DM has the FINAL say so, but I also agree with <font color="orange">Luvian</font> that - if the player has a legitimate argument - the DM should hear him out. And it wasn't 2 completely different systems. It was 1st Edition and 2nd Edition AD&D....and 2nd Edition didn't make any major changes (ike 3rd Edition did).
Another factor was that, even though the DM and I were friends, we often argued in games and real life both. He argued with me till he was blue in the face MANY times when I was the DM, but he didn't want anybody questioning him when he was "behind the screen".

<font color="cyan">Lavindathar</font> Thanks for the support. I appreciate it. And thanks for Posting in my thread.

<font color="yellow">Semis</font> Welcome to Ironworks...and thanks for Posting. I admit that the MR could seriously affect game balance. The guy who originally thought it up had a fit when I wanted to run it in one of his games. ABSOLUTELY NOT - TOO POWERFUL!!! OK, fair enough. My MR doesn't work at all in his game. But the other guy did allow it, until it messed up his plans. There was NO mention of it being weakened or adversely affected before then. He then just arbitrarily said that, since THIS 6th level spell specifically targeted MR, my immunity didn't apply to it. As you said, the reduction would've have been temporary, and not that big a deal (although <font color="red">Cerek</font> would almost NEVER run from battle.)
And since the ability was gained from a defeated foe, it was ALWAYS with me and always turned on. There would have been NO way to target the artifact itself.

<font color="plum">Vohl</font> - I agree with you concerning DM's. That is how I ran MY games, so that is how I expected others to run theirs. USUALLY, if you could present a reasonable argument, any DM in our group would at least consider the fact the player was right and they were wrong. Unfortunately, this guy wasn't like that...He was ALWAYS right...regardless of circumstances.

[ 03-29-2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Cerek the Barbaric ]